Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I used to think I was lucky.Follow

#52 Aug 25 2009 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
gbaji wrote:
Its true cos I say so..



Gbaji. making shit up and talking utter bollox since the day he was lobotomised....

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#53 Aug 25 2009 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I provided four separate links to four separate types of illnesses in which delays caused problems for patients in the UK NHS. My statement was not a guess. It was an approximation of the delays present in the four articles:

Infant tumors: 3 months.
Cancer in teens: 4 months.
Arthritis: 9 months.
Genetic breast cancer tests: 2 years.

The larger point being that in all four cases, the delays were directly attributed to significant health impact for the patients.

You kinda lose the right to demand I provide "proof" and "cites" if you refuse to read the links I provide.


Ah, I missed your links, my mistake.

The first one was informative. But it was only about cancer, and only about how the UK relates to the US and other places in Europe. So your generalization isn't entirely accurate, and it's wrong to blame the NHS for it, since it seems to be working just peachy in other parts of Europe.

The second one was from the Daily Mail... and I thought that wasn't a terribly reliable source. I see it's had more than one libel suit thrown at it... that makes me nervous to just accept it.

The third one was informative, but again, only about cancer, which skews your generalization. Again.

The fourth had to do with preventative care. Not entirely relevant.
#54 Aug 25 2009 at 6:04 PM Rating: Decent
*****
10,359 posts
Quote:
For the record, I was extremely confused by your post, but thought you meant it. I think it's because you don't use sarcasm that much, so I was a bit surprised to see it.


Hum.

Well that's sort of perspective breaking.

***
Quote:

Gbaji. making **** up and talking utter bollox since the day he was lobotomised....


I think you mean lobajinized. Quite similar procedure you know, but it's only performed in America, where the doctors can be trusted with the delicacy of it.

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 10:06pm by Pensive
#55 Aug 25 2009 at 6:11 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's a government run health care program. It has a poor record of diagnosis times. Where else should we be looking?


Provide proof that the diagnosis is a direct result of the health care program being government run. This should be simple.

gbaji wrote:
Infant tumors: 3 months.
Cancer in teens: 4 months.


Articles made it clear that doctors were having trouble relating the symptoms to anything.

gbaji wrote:
Arthritis: 9 months.


Article flat out started that this is because the vast majority of patients wait to go to their doctor, and then there's the typical amount of time required to ensure that it is arthritis.

gbaji wrote:
Genetic breast cancer tests: 2 years.


Article was three years old and addressing (as paulsol already pointed out!) relatively new testing processes.

Here's a bunch of much better conclusions:

1) In the UK, people are more comfortable with going to the doctor because of mild symptoms. This is why it's taking so long to diagnose cancer - going to the doctor and saying "my side hurts and I feel nauseous a lot" isn't exactly very indicative of anything. In the U.S., people would have to wait until they are far more ill, and therefore increase the chance of death. This, however, makes the cancer easier to diagnose, so we'll probably look better on paper because of that.

2) People, however, don't feel the need to rush to the doctor at the sign of the slightest problem. That's a concern that has been constantly brought up. It's just not true considering 50-75% of people wait three months to see the doctor about possible arthritis.

3) As Paulsol already pointed out, the UK is able to eventually make cutting edge technology available to all their citizens. In the U.S., this would most likely cause an insurance snafu.

gbaji wrote:
You kinda lose the right to demand I provide "proof" and "cites" if you refuse to read the links I provide.


I did, sweetheart. They don't prove your statements.

Still waiting for a citation that people will happily move internationally to make more money. Or did you ignore that because you have no proof?

Edited, Aug 25th 2009 10:13pm by CBD
#56 Aug 25 2009 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
I used to think I was lucky. I was like five or six and I brought five dollars to the Shriner's Circus to buy various souvenirs. Maybe a fluffy pair of alien antennas or a joke arrow through the head. Well, I lost that five dollars in a crowded lobby. I searched everywhere and it was lost. I went to the lost and found and told them about my five dollars. I was sitting in my seat, a little bit deflated when they called my name. Someone found my five dollars and had returned it. I was overcome with the joy of not only the money but also someone's inherent goodness and honesty. When I lost faith in man, I thought of this story and my faith was restored.

Then when I was about 30, I told this to someone and they were like, "They probably felt bad for you and just gave you their five dollars." And I was all like Smiley: mad but maybe I should still feel lucky.

(I'm gonna write this up for "Chicken Soup for the Bitter *****'s Soul.")
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#57 Aug 25 2009 at 8:15 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
They don't have to deny care.
So you basically agree that the US insurance system DOES deny care?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#58 Aug 25 2009 at 8:56 PM Rating: Excellent
When I lose faith in humanity, I start work on my doomsday device. The misanthropic feeling soon subsides and I stop, but every time I get a little closer to finishing it.
#59 Aug 25 2009 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
***
2,588 posts
RedPhoenixxx wrote:
I do find the whole private health insurance thing fascinating in some ways. It's basically a system where ordinary people must lose in order for the system to just survive. If people took out more than they put in, insurance companies would go bust. If they took out the same, insurance companies would go bust. It's a bit like the bank in a casino. It simply can't lose. I'm fine with having that system for gambling, but for health...

It's such a crazy system that stock prices of insurance companies are linked to the claim-paid rate of the company. Only in reverse. A company that has a paid-claim rate of 80% will be seen as more efficient than a company with a paid-claim rate of 85%. There is an actual disincentive for insurance companies to do the job they are supposed to do. For providing the service that people pay them to provide. Conceptually, it's an insane system. Especially for something as important as health.

Yes, everyone (especially very healthy people) pays a bit more to cover for the extremely expensive cases like cancer, AIDS and other long-term illnesses. But that happens pretty much everywhere, we don't just let those people die in civilized countries if they can't pay themselves.

Insurances don't make their money from NOT paying you (although they obviously try sometimes), they make their money because you pay them now, but only break your leg next year. Until then, and when they delay payment, they accrue interest. Otherwise it would hardly be worthwile to fight over 200 bucks for a visit to the GP, because at full cost, that's like 2-3 hours of work for the employee writing letters to you etc.


And some details about Switzerland mentioned earlier: You have to get basic health coverage and any insurance must take you on for basic health coverage. You can still pay more and get better insurance, single-bed hospital rooms etc. If you don't make enough money to pay the cost for basic insurance, the state helps you out.
Insurance providers are oftern for-profit companies, but there is a functioning market, so there is competition to keep prices down.
#60 Aug 25 2009 at 10:48 PM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
Gbaji there are problems with every health care system. However you posit your links as a criticism of government run health care, and that simply doesn't hold up. They are very specific criticisms of UK health care, and in every case, it was in the context of a internal study or report looking for weaknesses to fix. Nothing you've linked indicates that we should avoid government run health care.

It's also interesting that you would put so much weight into anecdotes about delays while ignoring the similar anecdotes about denial of service back in the US. I hear people saying that government run health care will pick your doctor for you and pick who lives and who dies, while all the evidence points to the fact that in reality, Government run programs don't do this, while your insurance companies actively do this on a regular basis. Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
Insurances don't make their money from NOT paying you (although they obviously try sometimes)
Insurance makes it's money by taking in more then they pay out. Thus every single payment they should make that they avoid is profit. They have people responsible for this.

Edited, Aug 26th 2009 1:49am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Aug 25 2009 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
***
2,588 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Insurances don't make their money from NOT paying you (although they obviously try sometimes)
Insurance makes it's money by taking in more then they pay out. Thus every single payment they should make that they avoid is profit. They have people responsible for this.

Sure, but if they pay significantly more rarely than others, people will just switch insurances. In Switzerland, you can switch basic insurance every year without any penalty. And anyway, basic insurance is pretty clearely defined by the law, so there is no point in wiggling, because the insurance company will lose mostly (for basic stuff, not for complicated, big cases). I've never ever had any problem getting my money back quickly. I must admit that I hardly ever go to the doctor; much less than 5 times a year.
#62 Aug 26 2009 at 1:34 AM Rating: Good
***
3,229 posts
Belk you don't live in a bad country. The Rep's are so in bed with the healthcare corporations and insurance providers that the venomous way they attack social healthcare systems in other countries truly brings their 'guilt' to light.

Change is going to be long and difficult, especially when you look at the attitudes you have to face from people Gbaji and Varrus.
#63 Aug 26 2009 at 3:37 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I hear people saying that government run health care will pick your doctor for you and pick who lives and who dies, while all the evidence points to the fact that in reality, Government run programs don't do this, while your insurance companies actively do this on a regular basis. Smiley: oyvey


Smiley: nod
#64 Aug 26 2009 at 5:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Gbaji there are problems with every health care system.


Yes. Which was my point.

Quote:
It's also interesting that you would put so much weight into anecdotes about delays while ignoring the similar anecdotes about denial of service back in the US.


I did no such thing. I have repeatedly acknowledged that insurance companies do deny care and that this is a problem that can and should be fixed. My point was that everyone focuses on the problems with the US system, while ignoring the problems with government run systems. It's incredibly amusing that you would interpret this in the way you did.

We should fix the problems with the US systems. Those problems can be fixed while keeping the overall methodology the same. My concern is that instead of fixing those problems, many people are proposing adding an additional component to the works (or replacing with it depending on viewpoint and timeframe), which also has problems. Wouldn't it suck mightily if we manage to fail to fix the issues with providers denying care we've got now, while introducing the problems with delays to get specialist access and diagnosis that may come with more government involvement?

Yeah. I think it would. How about we focus on fixing the existing system instead of replacing it with another one which is just as prone to problems as the one we've got? We do not need to put the government in a direct provider position in our health care system just to address the issue of providers denying care.


And that's what's so astounding about this. Republicans have a whole set of proposals they think would work well. These include greater regulation of providers to ensure that they can't weasel out of their contracts on pre-existing condition small print. They include allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. They include allowing consumers to change providers more easily and to retain providers if they change employer. All of these are designed to fix the biggest problems with the US health care system, while retaining the free-market competitive aspects of it (and frankly, improving on those by removing some current silly restrictions).

But that's all getting lost in the "Public Option or Bust" position the Dems have taken. And I'm sorry, but it's annoying by itself. It's more annoying when people complain about the very things the Republican ideas will address, yet steadfastly support the plan the Dems are putting in place. I don't think we should allow an issue this important to be held hostage to a party with a broader socio-political agenda. If you think the things I've listed above are important, you should be asking why the Dems aren't allowing just those things to be addressed, but are instead insisting that they wont fix them unless their precious public option (or some variant of it) is included.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#65 Aug 26 2009 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
Still waiting on my citation that anyone would move internationally for the sake of a bit more profit/year.
#66 Aug 26 2009 at 8:19 PM Rating: Default
**
739 posts
Quote:
Still waiting on my citation that anyone would move internationally for the sake of a bit more profit/year





http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alNiweY01.Mk
#67 Aug 26 2009 at 8:24 PM Rating: Good
****
4,512 posts
ThiefX wrote:
Quote:
Still waiting on my citation that anyone would move internationally for the sake of a bit more profit/year


The Article wrote:
Americans are heading home


We're also talking about health care. Try again.
#68 Aug 26 2009 at 9:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't think we should allow an issue this important to be held hostage to a party with a broader socio-political agenda.

*Shrug* The Republicans had years in which to advance these agendas if they were sincerely interested in them as anything other than a diversion away from the Democratic plans. These same issues were raised in the 90's under Clinton, so we're talking... what? 15 years? Where were the GOP bills to ensure coverage for people with pre-existing conidtions? Where were the bills ensuring that people could affordably switch out of their employer's plan? A decade and a half and...?

Wait, don't tell me. The mean ole Democrats wouldn't let them do it, right? I mean, that's always the excuse so I'd be shocked if it was any different this time around.

Now that the Democrats are in power and could potentially pass legislation the GOP doesn't like, it's "Wait! Wait! We had ALL THESE IDEAS! No one will listen to us because they only want their plan!" Well, boo-hoo. Cry moar and wonder where all your stellar ideas were from 1993 to 2009.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69 Aug 27 2009 at 6:03 AM Rating: Good
My client, the same one that I've had issues with regarding her insurance, has a new problem.

She was recently admitted into the hospital to have a portion of her pancreas removed. She went out of state to a better hospital to have this done. Her insurance company pre-approved her hospital stay to 23 hours.

Less than a day to recover from having part of an organ removed.

She's been in the hospital for almost a month now, having had some complications, infection, fever, etc. Her insurance company is saying that she is going to owe the hospital over $106,000.

I fucking hate our insurance here.

Tell me, Europeans. Would something like this ever happen to you??
#70 Aug 27 2009 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Less than a day to recover from having part of an organ removed.

The insurance company was afraid she'd be exposed to cooties. She should thank them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Aug 27 2009 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
*
243 posts
Quote:
She's been in the hospital for almost a month now, having had some complications, infection, fever, etc. Her insurance company is saying that she is going to owe the hospital over $106,000.

I ******* hate our insurance here.

Tell me, Europeans. Would something like this ever happen to you??


No, being from the UK and having previously suffered from Apendicitus I would hate to be worried about medical bills and things while in tandem with having to worry about an operation and recovery. I would rather

I have no idea what gbaji is chatting, he is acting like private insurance wont be available to the people who want it if an NHS type service was introduced in america. He's acting like he is being forced to settle for a "lower" level of service, sure your takes may go up, but by a seriously small amount, National Insurance tax which is the tax taken from a wage packet after someone earns over a previously stated amount (roughly this year £6000 annual), and for the amount of people it helps and the level of cover you get (which as much as gjadi may say is awful) is pretty good and quick it is well worth it.

Gjabi is thinking selfishly of his taxes and pulling things out of his **** during most of this thread.

Edited, Aug 27th 2009 1:09pm by Wisedeath
#72 Aug 27 2009 at 9:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wisedeath wrote:
I have no idea what gbaji is chatting, he is acting like private insurance wont be available to the people who want it if an NHS type service was introduced in america.

According to Gbaji, they won't be able to compete and will be driven out of business.

This creates a pretty amusing cross-messaging issue for the GOP. See, I keep hearing pundits ask the (retarded) question "If a public option is so good, why won't the people in Congress be on it instead of their system?!" Obviously, this is supposed to make me think "Wow, the public option must be crap!". But what the health care federal legislators have is a pool system of private companies where you can go through, comparison shop, and pick the coverage that's right for you and your family.

So apparently the Liberal Agenda goes:
(1) Pass crappy public option unsuitable for orphans and the homeless
(2) Drive our own insurance companies out of business with our public option
(3) Be forced into our shitty public option where we'll be subjected to ten year waiting periods before the death panel gets us.
(4) ???
(5) Profit!

Edited, Aug 27th 2009 12:21pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Aug 27 2009 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Wisedeath wrote:

Gjabi is thinking selfishly of his taxes and pulling things out of his **** during most of this thread.


Well, yeah. It's Gbaji.

In his mind it isn't selfish to worry about taxes, however. In fact, that's the correct thing to do. Since taxes infringe upon the freedom of Americans, by forcing us to pay, ANY expansion of ANY government program (outside of, perhaps, national defense) is to be avoided.

Millions of Americans be damned.
#74 Aug 27 2009 at 9:30 AM Rating: Decent
*
243 posts
Also to put another spanner in the work the English health care system is rated 18th in the world compared to the rank of 37th the american health care takes. ALSO the british goverment spend less per head than the american goverment yet achieve a better level of care.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html


Yes i know the tables are old from 2000 but they where the last ones produced.

#75 Aug 27 2009 at 9:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm surprised we don't spend more time talking about San Marino's health care system.

Given the size of San Marino, I'm guessing everyone just lives directly in the one hospital.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Aug 27 2009 at 9:36 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm surprised we don't spend more time talking about San Marino's health care system.

Given the size of San Marino, I'm guessing everyone just lives directly in the one hospital.


In the hills of San Marino, they don't need hospitals, just Jesus, fresh mountain air and nutritious goat's milk.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 278 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (278)